Question 21 re. options for the distribution of new development in rural areas

Comment

Representation ID: 18516

Received: 30/11/2006

Respondent: HOWARD HUTTON & ASSOCIATES

Agent: HOWARD HUTTON & ASSOCIATES

option 2 is supported as this accords with the concept of 'deficit planning' referred to in our response to question 8 (see representation 18510).

Comment

Representation ID: 18558

Received: 08/12/2006

Respondent: High Weald AONB Unit

Option 4 should be explored in detail in line with research undertaken for the AONB which suggests an alternative approach to rural sustainable development which would support a more dispersed development approach, supporting the AONB Management Objective to preserve the historic dispersed settlement pattern. Any option to develop villages will have a serious impact upon them, but a considerable degree of development could be absorbed within hamlets farmsteads and small settlements with minor impact upon the landcape.

Comment

Representation ID: 18590

Received: 29/01/2007

Respondent: Crowhurst Parish Council

New development should be distributed in accordance with paragraph 16.25 extract from Policy DS2 paragraph (iv) - development where villages already have a range of services which will support it. Otherwise dormitory areas are created.

Comment

Representation ID: 18592

Received: 30/01/2007

Respondent: Beckley Parish Council

Beckley Parish Councillors fully support the Rother District Local Plan. Beckley contains 5 separate delineated development areas along Main Street and Hobbs Lane where development is permitted subject to the Local Plan. Parish Councillors would like to see the retention of the development boundaries as they stand. Any attempt to develop those areas of countryside between the 5 settlement boundaries along Main Street should be strongly resisted. The village will come under increasing pressure from developers. Future developments are likely to occur as infilling, as in the recent consent in the garden of the Poplars.

Comment

Representation ID: 18607

Received: 30/01/2007

Respondent: Etchingham Parish Council

Option 2 most closely relates to the views expressed in Etchingham.

Comment

Representation ID: 18648

Received: 31/01/2007

Respondent: Rye Conservation Society

We would accept for the future that Option 2 could form an appropriate model if sensitively pursued.

Comment

Representation ID: 18670

Received: 01/02/2007

Respondent: Croudace Strategic Ltd

Agent: Charles Planning Associates Limited

Option 1 provides for sustainable growth in rural areas, according with Government policy to locate development in sustainable locations with existing facilities to reduce the need to travel. Option 1 also allows for development in a variety of settlements, helping maintain the sustainability of rural communities as set out in PPS3. A hierarchical approach to development, accounting for the need for settlements to develop according to their sustainability, commensurate with the level of services, facilities and employment it can provide, is supported.

Options 2 and 4 do not accord with Government policy. Option 3 unnecessarily restricts the development of some villages.

Comment

Representation ID: 18716

Received: 08/02/2007

Respondent: Tom Shannon

Land at Tanyard Farmhouse, Westfield is considered suitable for new sustainable village housing (37 dwellings) (site plan enclosed).

The site is secluded and not overlooked. It is close to a road and to utility services. It would provide a good environment. It accords with Aims 1 to 5 in that the environment is conserved and enhanced and new development contributes to the local character.

Comment

Representation ID: 18726

Received: 08/02/2007

Respondent: English Village Projects

Agent: Evison & Company

It follows that Option 4 is the correct option for the distribution of new development in rural areas, at least to the extent necessary to enable the harmful features of such villages to be remedied.

Comment

Representation ID: 18739

Received: 08/02/2007

Respondent: Highways Agency

The HA would expect that local planning authorities will assess the impact on the trunk road network of rural growth options. We would, therefore, like to see emerging policies that would minimise demand at source and require the mitigation of trunk road impacts throughout all stages of development planning, implementation and operation. This is particularly relevant to rural areas, as alternative transport choices tend to be limited, meaning that levels of reliance on the private car can be much higher than in urban centres.

Comment

Representation ID: 18760

Received: 09/02/2007

Respondent: PREM (Rooster) Limited

Agent: Montagu Evans

There has been a loss of local facilities and lack of affordable housing is a problem.

Redevelopment of the Robertsbridge Mill site would provide the opportunity to re-use land for local affordable housing.

Redevelopment of sites for housing or mixed-use schemes provides opportunities for people to stay in the villages and potentially for some small-scale employment opportunities. Opportunities within rural areas should not be ignored.

Development in rural areas should focus on service centres. Larger villages, with good rail and road connections, should take the major share of development to ensure that local facilities and businesses have support.

Comment

Representation ID: 18776

Received: 09/02/2007

Respondent: East Sussex County Council

it would appear that in practice there would be little to differentiate Option 2 from Option 4 in terms of outcomes i.e. accessibility issues and increased car dependency.

Options 1 and 3 appear to be a variation on a theme and reflect the methodology adopted by the County Council in determining the housing distribution for the "Rest Of East Sussex" undertaken as part of the South East Plan process.

Irrespective of the approach taken it is important to recognise that where schools are already full, the ability for them to expand should be taken into account, as some village schools are on small sites where additional building will be difficult if not impossible.

Comment

Representation ID: 18785

Received: 09/02/2007

Respondent: Home Builders Federation

Options 1 and 2 are most appropriate. Both of these options contain principles, which we believe would provide the best policy outcomes in planning terms.

Comment

Representation ID: 18794

Received: 12/02/2007

Respondent: Government Office for the South East

Given the rural nature of the District, we are pleased to see thought has been given to producing a new, specific strategy for the rural areas of Rother. Of the four possible options/scenarios there appears to be substantial overlap between options 1 and 3, and similarly"- between 2 and 4, in relation to the guidance given in PPS7 for (a) focussing development in, or near, existing local rural service centres, together with (b) some provision for limited development in other rural settlements as well, respectively. How does your approach build on the provisions of the current local plan policy in relation to housing and other development?

Comment

Representation ID: 18796

Received: 12/02/2007

Respondent: Mrs. Linda Gibson

The development strategy should provide for new residential development within the rural areas. A clear settlement hierarchy should be defined which provides the basis for directing future development to sustainable locations. Some locations could be made sustainable through new development an planning gain through the plan period. The Council should consider dispersing development within the rural area to mitigate the impact of development in settlements in accordance with PPS7.
Flimwell could support new greenfield development, including affordable housing. Planning benefits could enhance the range of facilities and add to the settlement’s sustainability.

Comment

Representation ID: 18806

Received: 13/02/2007

Respondent: The Crown Estate

Agent: Cluttons LLP

Support for option 4 for a dispersed strategy which will allow communities to grow and function. Remove settlement boundaries from rural settlements, which leads to cramming with no affordable housing. Provide a policy which allows development of a Greenfield site on a first come first served basis to provide a small number of dwellings both market and affordable, where there is an identified need.

Comment

Representation ID: 18826

Received: 13/02/2007

Respondent: AmicusHorizon Ltd (Rother Homes)

We feel there is a need for affordable housing in all rural settlements, even those that have lost most or all of their services.

Most rural developments should take place in settlements where a range of services remain or a partial range of services remain, or remain but are considered to be at risk. Residential development can support and expand services and facilities, thereby giving choice to users of affordable housing.

Comment

Representation ID: 18827

Received: 13/02/2007

Respondent: AmicusHorizon Ltd (Rother Homes)

Villages where services are at risk need to be identified. These need to benefit from preferential and flexible planning decisions.

Possible larger role for affordable housing providers, in providing small shop units for rent within affordable housing schemes.

Comment

Representation ID: 18836

Received: 13/02/2007

Respondent: Mr Christopher Strangeways

Appropriate high density mixed development can be accommodated larely within the existing footprints of the settlements of Rother. These settlements should be the focus of employment, services, leisure etc thus reducing the need for residents to travel.

Comment

Representation ID: 18862

Received: 14/02/2007

Respondent: The National Trust

We support Option 1 which would continue to focus development on local service centres. This strategy is most likely to meet local needs through the District.

In Battle, Rye and the rural areas we believe that local needs and environmental constraints should determine the level and distribution of development. We would also be concerned about the potential impact of greenfield development to the north west of Hastings on the High Weald AONB.

Comment

Representation ID: 18889

Received: 15/02/2007

Respondent: Strutt & Parker

It is difficult to see much distinction between Options 1 and 3 as this approach tends towards a polarization of facilities in a narrow range of settlements. If such an approach is taken then regard needs to be taken to their distribution, to ensure that their pattern is not such that pockets of isolation remain.

An even distribution of development is rarely practical or achievable, and focusing development opportunities solely on the basis of delivery of community facilities can discriminate against communities where there is no local political consensus. On balance, it is considered that continued support for principal service centres is an appropriate strategy, but making allowances for development elsewhere where this is demonstrably in support of community needs and facilities.

Comment

Representation ID: 18895

Received: 15/02/2007

Respondent: Persimmon Homes South East

Agent: Bell Cornwell

There should be some dispersal of development around the rural areas. In broad terms, however, this should be focussed more on the larger settlements such as Northiam, which have a number of local facilities. Endorse option 1 (Continue to focus on service centres), as it complies with the advice in PPS3.

Comment

Representation ID: 18900

Received: 15/02/2007

Respondent: Wealden District Council

Options relating to dispersed development within the rural areas should ensure that this is not detrimental to the setting of the villages within the rural landscape.

Comment

Representation ID: 18920

Received: 16/02/2007

Respondent: Councillor David Vereker

It is important that the ridge villages are not expanded laterally so that they join up. Development boundaries should be maintained. Option 1 and 3 are broadly similar. It would be a mistake to go on enlarging those villages with facilities, money needs to be spent on improving facilities in some of the smaller communities. A survey should be done of all the villages to audit all facilities, and what facilities are required. A combination of option 2 and 4 may be the way to go. It is appropriate to have an overall vision and objectives for the rural areas.

Comment

Representation ID: 18947

Received: 19/02/2007

Respondent: Rother Voluntary Action

All options have merits. Option 2 is necessary to support a thriving rural area. There will be additional demand in larger villages (Option 3) and yet there will still be a need for some dispersed development (Option 4 ). As above, there needs to be the flexibility to respond to local need.